Quality of wickets

[SJS]

Well, I've got a couple of the 'more enlightened members' on <ignore>, but I reckon I still (on occasion) get the gist of some of the arguments - confirmed when all and sundry keep quoting them, of course.

I just sort-of imagine how I would reply, wait 10 minutes and Marc does it for me.

Good morning LE. Isnt it too early for you. Its not yet 5 am in India and I was woken up by my labs.

 

[luckyeddie]

Good morning LE. Isnt it too early for you. Its not yet 5 am in India and I was woken up by my labs.

It's way past my bedtime, but I have been up bottling my latest batch of beer - and of course had to, er, 'test' it too.

5 gallons of nectar.

 

[Jono]

Quite simply, no-one can offer an all-covering definition of what's deserved and what's not.
As for MacGill - getting Bangladeshi wickets means no more than getting wickets at state level - the same as it does for all other bowlers.

Then Warne or Clark NOT getting wickets against them is an even bigger indictment on them.

You probably dismiss Gilly's ton against Bangladesh. If that's the case, then the failings of Ponting, Martyn, Hayden etc. is again, an indictment of how badly they played. If suceeding against them means crap all, failing against them means a hell of a lot!

 

[vic_orthdox]

Okay. I have now read HB's original post in its entirety and have understood what I should have before I tried to be smart in the first place.

I am not one of those who thinks that a quality wicket is necessarily one which gets a top order batsman. A great delivery is a great delivery whether bowled at Mike Gatting or Courtney Walsh. Sure, it may give greater satisfaction when it tricks a great player with all his skills and his experience but it is the same delivery which may get a tail ender. The fact that it was 'over-specified' for the tail ender doesnt make it any less a delivery.

Yes as a a generalisation one can 'assume' that the top order batsmen would require higher quality of deliveries to be fooled by than those at the bottom but it doesnt ned any elaboration to suggest the great extent of exception that exist to such generalisation.

You will get top order batsmen with ordinary deliveries and bowl great ones at tail enders and may or may not get a wicket.

I am reminded of a great bowler who when his captain applauded him all the way for running through the opposition on a helpful wicket said, :I wish you would applaud me on the days when I bowl as well as this or better but end up with none for hundred or more" (or words to that effect)

As far as whether the top 7 constitute the better batsmen. Well thats a safer assumption to make which is likely to be correct often enough to be used as a criteria to separate good batsmen from below average. The exceptions, in a big enough sample wont make much of a difference.

But it is the defining of a wicket taking delivery as necessarily a good delivery that I have an issue with as I have with the assumption that a delivery that gets a quality batsman is necessarily a quality delivery as against one that gets a poor batsman.

The QUALITY lies in the delivery and not in the wicket taken.

What the bowlers do is BOWL quality DELIVERIES which sometimes do, and sometimes dont, get them wickets.. The quality of the batsman whose wicket falls does not determine the quality of the bowlers effort which is what they are trying to determine.

I now have no need to contribute to this thread.

EDIT: But I decided to anyways, just to support a good post.

 

[GotSpin]

Then Warne or Clark NOT getting wickets against them is an even bigger indictment on them.

Just because warne or clark did not get any wickets against them doesn't mean that MacGill's wickets were quality wickets. They were lucky IMO

 

[benchmark00]

Agree

That just shows how foolish your argument is then.

 

[andyc]

Quite simply, no-one can offer an all-covering definition of what's deserved and what's not.
As for MacGill - getting Bangladeshi wickets means no more than getting wickets at state level - the same as it does for all other bowlers.

Oh come off it Richard. Does the fact that for the first three days it was pretty much only Bangladesh in the match mean nothing to you?

 

[luckyeddie]

This really requires exploring further.

I suggest having a panel of 'judges' who attribute a mark to a dismissal (mode, content, comedy) and a side aren't actually 'out' until they have achieved the perfect ten.

Something like Mike Gatting's "Shane Who?" or an Inzamam obstruction of the field could carry a higher 'tarriff of difficulty' - in Inzy's case, the equivalent of a diver's full-twisting inward two and a half somersault with pie - might be worth the maximum two complete wickets, but then at the other end of the scale a snorting Harmison throat ball leaving the batsman nowhere to go (this is known in certain circles as 'luck' or 'poor form') might only be worth 0.2.

The benefits of the system are there for all to see - Harmison's 7-12 figures are expunged from the record books for a start, and that in itself will bring succour to many. Of course, cricketers will have to 'catch the eye' like ice-skaters, and I look forward to the day when Blowers says "And Scott Styris strides out resplendently to the middle, in his new purple off-the-shoulder number, and I know for a fact that his mother was up all night helping to sew the sequins on and .... oh dear. He's forgotten to put any his underwear. That won't impress the judges, my dear old thing."

 

[Ikki]

Then Warne or Clark NOT getting wickets against them is an even bigger indictment on them.

You probably dismiss Gilly's ton against Bangladesh. If that's the case, then the failings of Ponting, Martyn, Hayden etc. is again, an indictment of how badly they played. If suceeding against them means crap all, failing against them means a hell of a lot!

While you have a point, it only stands true very uncommonly. That's WHY Bangladesh are considered the way they are. Because such important contributions, usually, aren't all that important. Fair enough, the first innings of the two test match series, two players gave in great performances regardless of the opposition. Now, how many times do you expect to say that...better yet even as it stands...ONE innings, of a two match series...

 

[Magrat Garlick]

This really requires exploring further.

I suggest having a panel of 'judges' who attribute a mark to a dismissal (mode, content, comedy) and a side aren't actually 'out' until they have achieved the perfect ten.

Something like Mike Gatting's "Shane Who?" or an Inzamam obstruction of the field could carry a higher 'tarriff of difficulty' - in Inzy's case, the equivalent of a diver's full-twisting inward two and a half somersault with pie - might be worth the maximum two complete wickets, but then at the other end of the scale a snorting Harmison throat ball leaving the batsman nowhere to go (this is known in certain circles as 'luck' or 'poor form') might only be worth 0.2.

The benefits of the system are there for all to see - Harmison's 7-12 figures are expunged from the record books for a start, and that in itself will bring succour to many. Of course, cricketers will have to 'catch the eye' like ice-skaters, and I look forward to the day when Blowers says "And Scott Styris strides out resplendently to the middle, in his new purple off-the-shoulder number, and I know for a fact that his mother was up all night helping to sew the sequins on and .... oh dear. He's forgotten to put any his underwear. That won't impress the judges, my dear old thing."

Vintage.

 

[Tom Halsey]

This really requires exploring further.

I suggest having a panel of 'judges' who attribute a mark to a dismissal (mode, content, comedy) and a side aren't actually 'out' until they have achieved the perfect ten.

Something like Mike Gatting's "Shane Who?" or an Inzamam obstruction of the field could carry a higher 'tarriff of difficulty' - in Inzy's case, the equivalent of a diver's full-twisting inward two and a half somersault with pie - might be worth the maximum two complete wickets, but then at the other end of the scale a snorting Harmison throat ball leaving the batsman nowhere to go (this is known in certain circles as 'luck' or 'poor form') might only be worth 0.2.

The benefits of the system are there for all to see - Harmison's 7-12 figures are expunged from the record books for a start, and that in itself will bring succour to many. Of course, cricketers will have to 'catch the eye' like ice-skaters, and I look forward to the day when Blowers says "And Scott Styris strides out resplendently to the middle, in his new purple off-the-shoulder number, and I know for a fact that his mother was up all night helping to sew the sequins on and .... oh dear. He's forgotten to put any his underwear. That won't impress the judges, my dear old thing."

I do agree with some of what Richard says about Harmison... but

 

[Richard]

Then Warne or Clark NOT getting wickets against them is an even bigger indictment on them.

You probably dismiss Gilly's ton against Bangladesh. If that's the case, then the failings of Ponting, Martyn, Hayden etc. is again, an indictment of how badly they played. If suceeding against them means crap all, failing against them means a hell of a lot!

The same as it'd mean a hell of a lot if both failed in a single state game?
No.
Failure in 1 game doesn't really say much about anyone, especially if they're proven quality beforehand.
I don't "dismiss" anything - I just don't give credence for anything that happened in this game as Test-cricket.

 

[Richard]

Oh come off it Richard. Does the fact that for the first three days it was pretty much only Bangladesh in the match mean nothing to you?

So does that mean that Ireland-vs-West Indies in 2004 should've been a ODI, because Ireland comprehensively dominated it?

 

[honestbharani]

I know the broad questoin asked by HB but I'll reply in the specifics he's going after. No, I don't consider Bangladeshi wickets that valuable, even if it is upper order. Bar the occurance on the first day of Australia V Bangladesh they haven't done near enough to convince me. I've actually seen a Jones or a Hoggard bat well and actually worry Australia.

There is also another side to this...well the SIDE itself. Not getting Bangladeshi top order batsmen is not a big a deal as not getting out lower order English batsmen, for e.g. Why? Because if you don't close out a game against England, you will probably lose. As exemplified by the first test this week, the same does not go for Bangladesh.

As for Rafique and Strauss comparison...really..who in their right mind would rate a Rafique wicket more valuable than Strauss'. Ok, you find one instance where Rafique's manner of getting out was more due to Warne's talent. It doesn't matter, as much as I like this Bangladesh side and I WANT them to get better, right now, and in the past, their wickets in comparison to other countries are really at the lowest heap of the pile. No offense to the Bangladeshis here.

The Rafique and Strauss comparison was more about the WAY they were dismissed. OF course anyone would rank a Lara dragging a half tracker back to his stumps as a better wicket than a Bashar defeated by the perfect jaffa, pitching on leg and hitting off stump. I am talking about it from a BOWLER'S point of view. I had a chat with Kumble once with a group of my friends (he gave away the trophies in a school tourny back then) and he told us about the wicket of Saqlain Mushtaq in one of the million ODIs he played against Pak as something that gave him the greatest satisfaction because he set him up and he got him out. I think mentioned that everything went EXACTLY the way he had envisioned them and even the ball spun exactly the amount he wanted it to. He said that doesn't happen often at all. As an Indian player and team member, he will rate wickets of blokes like Lara, Jayasuriya, Ponting etc as better than other wickets, but purely from a bowling perspective, I guess wickets like that of Saqlain' s will give him greater satisfaction.

 

[honestbharani]

Plus, another aspect that needs to be considered is that on a given day, a Rafique can easily bat better than a Strauss or a Yuvraj. People playing out of their skins needs to be accounted for as well, as well as the fact that people can play well below their par at times. Like in the 98 tour to RSA, Lara basically played in such a distracted manner that it wasn't funny. He seemed to regard the match as secondary to his contests with Donald. He was hell bent on hitting for a few fours, came down the track to hit him. They put Jonty as sweeper and he still hit the same shots. 3 fours and then boom, caught at the boundary by Jonty. How "earned" were those wickets on AAD's part? IN that context, the wicket of Ridley Jacobs, to me, was better earned than Lara's....

 

[Ikki]

Plus, another aspect that needs to be considered is that on a given day, a Rafique can easily bat better than a Strauss or a Yuvraj. People playing out of their skins needs to be accounted for as well, as well as the fact that people can play well below their par at times. Like in the 98 tour to RSA, Lara basically played in such a distracted manner that it wasn't funny. He seemed to regard the match as secondary to his contests with Donald. He was hell bent on hitting for a few fours, came down the track to hit him. They put Jonty as sweeper and he still hit the same shots. 3 fours and then boom, caught at the boundary by Jonty. How "earned" were those wickets on AAD's part? IN that context, the wicket of Ridley Jacobs, to me, was better earned than Lara's....

Yes, but how often do these players play 'out of their skin'. Not too many, I don't need to assure you.

In your post prior, I wasn't arguing about what it means to the bowler. I was arguing about, upon reflection on one's career, even if we wanted to look at every ball, there are going to be very few times a bowler might say: "That doosra on Aftab Ahmed was one of my favourite wickets". In any sport, I'd take a crap goal scored in the final of a Champions League over a cracker in the Carling Cup. In the end, the one that matters may not be the one the bowler himself enjoyed.

Regardless, I concede that their maybe two ways of looking at wickets:

- What it means to everyone as a whole

- What it means to the bowler

I don't argue that, don't really see why it should be an argument.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, but how often do these players play 'out of their skin'. Not too many, I don't need to assure you.

In your post prior, I wasn't arguing about what it means to the bowler. I was arguing about, upon reflection on one's career, even if we wanted to look at every ball, there are going to be very few times a bowler might say: "That doosra on Aftab Ahmed was one of my favourite wickets". In any sport, I'd take a crap goal scored in the final of a Champions League over a cracker in the Carling Cup. In the end, the one that matters may not be the one the bowler himself enjoyed.

Regardless, I concede that their maybe two ways of looking at wickets:

- What it means to everyone as a whole

- What it means to the bowler

I don't argue that, don't really see why it should be an argument.

no, but when you are comparing bowlers and look at what wickets they got and valuing them based on that, you HAVE TO distinguish between wickets that were "earned" and wickets that were "given". If no one ever compared bowlers based on "cheap wickets" and stuff like that, we wouldn't need this thread.

 

[Ikki]

no, but when you are comparing bowlers and look at what wickets they got and valuing them based on that, you HAVE TO distinguish between wickets that were "earned" and wickets that were "given". If no one ever compared bowlers based on "cheap wickets" and stuff like that, we wouldn't need this thread.

Sorry mate, that makes it just wayyyy too subjective. It's just muddying the waters.

 

[Matt79]

So basically if a bowler is able to take wickets by full tosses and half-trackers they are deemed quality deliveries?

Yes. It's not likely to happen, there's a reason why full tosses and half-trackers aren't generally successful at any decent level of competition - however, if the bowler is able to consistenly and deliberately produce a delivery that the orthodoxy would frown upon as a poor delivery, and that delivery consistently takes wickets, then, as the delivery has done what it was designed to do and taken a wicket, it can't really be called poor.

I'm thinking of the Craig McDermott circa 95-96 when Sri Lanka were touring Australia. He took lots of wickets, and at one stage was on a hat trick in an ODI with a slow full toss delivery. THere was a modicum of deception in the aciton with which he bowled it, but it was basically a slow, full toss at people's legs - and for a period he consistently took wickets with it - not only against tailenders.

 

[honestbharani]

Sorry mate, that makes it just wayyyy too subjective. It's just muddying the waters.

cricket itself is way too subjective. That is why you and I have been talking about the value of actually "Watching" players and judging them based on that. But the problem is that there are few around the cricket world (and in CW) who are more than happy to judge how a pitch behaved and how the conditions were based on the scorecard. I am sorry, but at best, it will be a decent guess but there is no way you can say that "so and so" pitch for the "so and so" match was a flat track or a green top or a dust bowl based on just the scorecard. And same goes for quality of wickets. You look at the players' name, the runs he has scored and you quickly say "nah, that batter was just not in form" or that "it was just a lucky wicket". How much can you conclude without watching the game? AFAIC, the answer is ZILCH. Cricket is perhaps the only game in the world which as so many variables and that is the reason why I believe it is almost impossible to judge players, matches, quality of wickets etc. without having watched the match. Maybe if we all just stick to the stuff we have seen and judge only those things, we will be a lot more accurate.